I agree but lets but it like this lets say you have school A who goes along with talking about being part of BSF but at same time prepares a APBC lets be honest would not take much for LA to make sure they are the trial/pioneer school in return for being part of BSF.
As a trust school, we are wanting to chose what is the best for our school. Not what the LA thinks is best for our school as integral part of the BSF process. We have decided to do many things well before BSF that were not part of the LA strategy.
But I would prefer this thread to stick to talking about examples of schools putting in and preparing APBCs, rather than using them as a bargaining tool. Some schools have refused funding rather than accept the imposed strategy! We are not starting our APBC on the premiss that it will be a bartering tool!
Ideally I am looking for schools that are not part of the initial BSF waves that are looking at APBCs.
Of course Tim sorry for taking your thread slightly off topic. I of course wasn't saying that is what why you where starting it.
Not to get political...
But this thread and others seems to indicate that no one has been allowed (and there is no right of appeal) to opt out of the BSF; this is regardless of how well they have managed ICT in the past, regardless of whether solutions they are currently using are available under the local BSF managed service; or where theoretically available it is demonstrable the provider has little or no skills supporting solutions.
I've read the decision for Villiers; while the points made are no doubt valid, I am certain I could raise similar level criticisms for most BSF solutions. After all, this is all in my professional area, and one person's solution/strategy is easily criticised from a different perspective.
Where's the choice? What opportunities are there for schools to innovate with ICT inside a BSF deal? If no one can get an Alternative Procurement Business Case through, is it because the BSF system assumes one size fits all is better by default?
(yes, I know it's a little OT; happy to be redirected to a new thread if more suitable)
The decision to impose a managed ICT solution on schools and LAs as part of BSF is political, in the same way as forcing LAs to close perfectly good schools & replace them with academies in order to secure BSF funding is political. It is not about reducing cost & saving money.
BSF is being driven by the need to renew crumbling school infrastructure (after decades of neglect by both Labour and Conservatives). There is no money in the Government coffers, the Government needs PFI, and managed ICT is a sweetener for the PFI companies.